|
Quote:
So AT&T wants to merge with Time Warner. Time Warner owns HBO. So it's now in AT&T's best interest to get more people to watch HBO instead of Netflix. With NN, they couldn't slow down your netflix stream speeds, or conversely increase HBO speeds. With NN repealed, they can do so. Or you can pay extra $$ to 'unlock' Netflix Compatible Package or some bs -- something which you already had. It's also trouble in the US because their ISPs have mysteriously created geographical boundaries they don't cross -- so in any area that's not a metropolis there really isn't much choice. Imagine if Telus was only available in bby, newwest and tricities, and Shaw was only available in Van and Richmond, surrey. If one fucks you, there's nowhere else to go to. Anyway that's the gist of it. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Just saiyan.............. |
Quote:
|
Thanks to those who gave better explanation of the issue here. Content neutrality, I get and understand the need for. Like I alluded to, BK was cute and got people talking about it and wanting whoppers but seriously, it didn't really explain net neutrality that well. |
Quote:
seems to be the trend. |
Quote:
|
^ bravo! The Canadian gov't loves to run their own monopolistic businesses. The problem is that they run them like they're public services, and not like a corporation. Anyone who has ever had to deal with a gov't agency knows what I'm talking about. Whether it's the unions, or the ideology of the gov't worker, they would never survive without the monopolies. Quote:
:fullofwin: *the more you know |
Quote:
|
If people think BC Hydro is bad look at California. |
Quote:
I think this would be more accurate: You have a Ferrari, I have a Pinto. You get to the mall faster, but it costs you more. I get there slower, but i'm saving money on gas and a cheaper car. The government comes along (NN) and forces us to both driver there at the same rate. This limits your Ferrari, and forces me to pay more to get my Pinto up to speed. |
I don't really think we have to dumb things down. In the US, some internet providers are intentionally slowing down content from other competitors. it's as simple as that. The BK little social media cutesy video doesn't really illustrate this effectively. Eg. In the States Comcast would be slowing down content from Vonage (their competitor). Verizon was caught slowing down content from Netflix and Youtube. This falls under content neutrality which I think is a good idea, levels the playing field. BK dumb things down and made it look like if you want to pay for a faster internet connection (rate that you get your whopper), you can't or shouldn't be able to .. well, yah, in real life, you can pay more to get something faster. Talk to Amazon, UPS, Fed Ex, Canada Post ... that's a fact of life. |
For those pining for Arby's, one is opening at the strip mall next to Tsawassen Mills. |
To everyone poorly attempting to dumb things down, let's try again with something that may hit closer to home. Let's pretend Shaw owns pornhub and earn ad revenue. With NN, Shaw couldn't throttle your speeds to xvideos, so you got the same quality porn on whatever site. Now with NN repealed, every other porn site you visit is slow as fuck and all the tits are pixelated. Except pornhub. So you call Shaw, and they explain that government shouldn't control porn content, and that competition is good and all is fair business. Except you can't switch to Telus because conveniently Telus doesn't provide internet where you live. They do across the street, but then again there's no Shaw there. So now you can either only wank to pornhub, watch dial-up quality porn, or you can pay Shaw for their Advanced Porn Package which is $15 on top of your bill every month. The issue at hand isn't whether government oversight is good or bad, nor is this some left vs right bullshit - it's the notion that ISPs control the internet to the consumer as a way to boost profit. An even larger issue is that the government body overseeing this (the FCC) is corrupt as fuck. "Draining the swamp". Seriously, it's incredulous that there are morons who are making this an ideology thing. There is 0 benefit to repealing NN for any average citizen. Zero. |
i think people just wanna ask the implications of the repeal it has in Canada, if any does Shaw still throttle peer sharing? |
Also, for those who are complaining the BK vid didn't do a good enough job of explaining what NN is or why it is important, remember what the video is -- it is first and foremost a BK marketing scheme (ie. a BK ad), and then subsequently it is an analogy, a parody, etc. It isn't going to be the perfect tool to explain what NN is, but it is a good conversation starter. |
Quote:
|
Net Neutrality is really simple: ISPs don't get to be a gatekeeper for the contents. By prioritizing content delivery speed, they can effectively control how we consume content. Inv4zn explained it great above. Think it the other way around... if ISPs get to be the gatekeeper, they can also control it depending on who pays them more for prioritizing their connections. Say site A pays $10 for priority while its competitor, site B pays nothing to the ISP. Site A charges $20 to its users while B charges 10 offering the identical service/product. ISP makes site B so slow that it's almost unreachable 80% of the time. Would anyone still use site B? nop. So, it harms the competition and innovation greatly as only sites who can afford to pay (big ass corps) ISPs would have access to the general public who doesn't pay "premium" to have a un-regulated internet connection. |
Quote:
Your analogy would be more like paying more money for a different tier ie/ 25 Mb/s vs 75 Mb/s or switching to a company that provides faster internet. For NN, they are controlling the speed of the same mode of access to different locations. |
A few points that have been overlooked through the multiple tactical analogies: 1) the section that has been repealed, categorizing IS as a utility, was only enacted in 2015. Guess what. The internet was fine before then, it'll be fine now. The FTC policed it then, they'll police it now. It's not some wild west free for all. Consumers will be protected. 2) I find it a little absurd that people believe all traffic deserves the same priority. Sorry, but loading videos from your favorite free porn site shouldn't hold the same precedent as a Dr performing a highly advanced surgical procedure. And with 5g around the corner, there are going to be a colossal number of devices, from all sorts of fields, beyond just phones, fridges and TV's. To restrict them all to one speed I think is just silly. Here's an analogy: in your car, would it make sense to run data from your crash sensors at the same speed as your heated seats? 3) there is the possibility that a tiered system would actually speed up the "slow" lane by reducing traffic. 4) this repeal is going to generate funds for ISP's. And that's a good thing. These funds can be used to advance IS technology. This idea that ISP's are the bogeyman out to screw their customers in every way possible really defies the basic logic behind running a business. Big or small. 5) it's the US. I venture to guess that the number of people effected here by their regulation practices is low to nil. So who really gives a shit? |
Have to disagree with you there. Quote:
|
1) there are not countless examples. There were something like three times that ISP's were caught throttling. And the FTC caught it. My point is, it's not something that will just go unchecked. 2) again, it's not a pay for choke free for all. There are still rules and a commission overseeing. No one would notice if the signal for your seat heater reached a control module 50 ms faster. But 50 ms could mean the difference between death and serious injury in a crash. But yes, if a company wanted to pay for that 50 ms faster heater signal, they could. My guess is they wouldn't. And they also wouldn't be able to pay to have the crash signal slowed. 3) that's not an argument. 4) prior to 2015, yes, absolutely. It may not have been invested into fiber optics as much, but huge amounts had and continue to be invested into wireless. That's the route ISP's decided to go, and maybe we should be thankful they did. 5) net neutrality has been around since the nineties. It's not being rid of. This is just a section that's been repealed. That said, maybe we should wait to see the outcome before we start raising hysteria. These days it's like the verdict is in long before the trial even occurs. We're so quick to jump on a narrative without even taking the time to understand it. I don't know what will happen. Nobody does. We're fortunate enough to be in a good position to observe though. |
Wait....This isn't about burgers !?!? |
Quote:
McDonald will be the 1st to jump on the boat if this actually starts |
Why do I even bother feeding the troll when he is full of bullshxt? Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net